19871123 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF T;JTZAl'HA AT D,A R ES S.A:LAJ,J.1 APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION {Dar es Salaam-Registry) HIGH C-OURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO·. 58 OF 1984 (ORIGINAL CRIMINJiL CASE NO. 262 OF 1982) OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOROGORO DISTRICT .AT MOROGORO BEFORE C. M. SHILOGILE, ESQ., SENIOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 1. 8 30 l>O I II I-Li.MIS I ••••••••••••••••• A PPELL~T (Original accused) Yersus THE Ul:rITED REPUBLIC • •••••••••••••• iiDSPONDBBT JUDGMENT The appellant., 1-. 830 PO .III Hamisi, was convicted by the district court at Morogoro of three counts of stealing by .~ublic ser.rant~ The total amount involved in the three eounts was Shs; 29,814/70. He was s_entenced to imprisonment for five years in the first count, three years in the second count and ·six years in the third ... count~ It was broered that the sentences· be ··served concurrently'; The appellant was disatisfied and he now appeals to .this court·. It was the prosecution evitlence that the appellant was a Frie•ns Officer employed by the Ministry of Home 1::ffairs and he was stationed at Kingolwira in Morogoro ~ The appellant was assigned duties in ·t· the Kingolwira sub-Post Office- ll.lllong his duties was the ,collection of m~ney from customerswho made deposits in their accounts and payment of money to customers as we11·. That evidei1ce was undisputed~ It was also not in diipute that between March.and April, 1982 the appellant_ received a total of Shs. 29 1 814/70 which he was required to remit to Morogoro Post Office which received it on behalf of the Tanzania Posts and Telecom~tUnj:c-ations Corporation. .It was the prosecution case that the appellant did not remit the money to the Corporation_... a.nd so he stole the money·•. Evidence was given by the Head Post Me.ste.r for Morogoro 9 PVl.l 'Salim Mhina Balra.ri, that the appellant was assigned the duties at / Kingolwira aub--,post bffice in Ma:t'Ch: 1981. The accused had attended· a si;iort two-months cours~ on how to run the duties at the sub- post office.- :tie was req.:.;uired' to make fortnightly returns of his \ revenue and expenditure and to remit any money so collected to the Morogoro Post Office with those returns·. The appellant did not do as instructed. , On 16th l~pril, 198 2 when PW .1 S aliln Bakari visited Kingolwira Sub-post office, he found that the appellant had not prepared the returns~ In the course of checking the records it was found out that betvreen l~t March, 1982 and 15th March, 1982 the appellant had collected Shs. · 7,827/= and made payments of Shs. 2,440/=~ The balance of Shs. 5,387/= was not accounted for-;· Betwee~:J.6th March, 1982 and 31st March, 1982 the appellant had collected Shs. 24,490/= but he was able to account for Shs. 960/= only. h. sum of Shs. 23,530= was not accounted for~ Similarly, the appellant had collected Shs. 2,370/= during llpril, 1982 and he accounted for Shs. 400/=·• He could not exp~ain what he did with the Shs. 1,970/=• These s u m s ~ unaccounte~"'v:ere the subject matter of the three counts with which the appellant was charge·d and subsequently convicted. The appellant's defence was that he had given ail the money to PW .1 Salim Mhina Bakari but no receitrl would be sent to him by the Corporation: The appellant said that he trusted the Head Postmaster and he di°d not ask for wri ttet-n aolttiO•L&dgement of the money. He also said that there was no witness present when he gave the money to J?W.l Salim Bakari. The appellant has repeated that line of defence ill!. the memorandum of appeal and in his oral submissio1 to this court·. The learned district magistrate considered the evidence before him and. came to thG conclusion that the appellant stole the money~ PW .l Salim Bal{ari went to the appellant's station for inspection; The appellant had not prepared the fortnightly returns for the montb.•J of March, 1982 and for thG first half of April, 1982. So i;he appellant's asserl:::..n that he had given the money to the Head Post- ::- master cannot be true because he did not know how much to remit. Further to that, it is inconceivable that the appellant would have parted with Shs. 29,814/70 without asking for, and obtaining a document from the receiver in acknowledge1;1ent 1 or without calling a witness. The trial magist~te was justified in rejecting the appellant's defence. It is abundantly clear that the appellant stole the money and that is the reason he did not prepare the fortnightly returns .and he did not remit the money regularly as he was required to do. This appeal is devoid of merit; The sentences in the three counts are in accordance with the law as the money belongs to "a specified authori ty 11 and the appellant was sentenced under the Minimum Sentences .Act~ : "- ;\,'\.~' ~/ ..'. ~~~~~·i~:~:;.-••<, ·~· .- ;•-:·: -~~ ..:.. The appeal is dismissed .;.::f:n;.. ,1:ts entirety~ t~~sv Vl • J • MAINi~ JUDGE M0R()GORO 23rd Uovetiber, 1987 . Appellant - present. Malaba, State attorney, for the Republic•_ '